Pentax 67 waistlevel/ magnifier finder preferences?

[Lachlan Young]

Simple question: of those of you who use either the waistlevel or magnifying finder on the Pentax 67/ 6x7, which do you prefer and why?

 

[DREW WILEY]

The fold-down waist level finder has the advantage of compactness and a bit less weight, but that's about all. There's a flip down basic magnifying glass that works with the center of the image only. The chimney hood works much better, but makes the camera quite a bit taller. It screens out all extraneous light, has an adjustable diopter, sees the entire screen crisply, and is the brightest viewing option of all.

 

[moto-uno]

Not too dissimilar to the Pentacon Six I have , got both and agree with what Drew has said . I'd add that the Chimney
finder gets used only around the house . It is nice how it excludes all extraneous light though . Peter

 

[skysh4rk]

There's a flip down basic magnifying glass that works with the center of the image only.

Hmmm... I think there may be more than one model of waist level finder for the Pentax 67, so this could possibly be right for yours, but I just double-checked mine and it definitely works with the whole image and not only the centre part. Having experience with Hasselblads, Rolleiflexes, Bronicas, etc., I would also say it's as good as a waist level finder you can get. I have cameras with truly basic magnifying loupes (e.g., Lubitel 166u, Holga 120 GTLR, etc.) and the P67 offering is far better than that.

As for using the WLF, focusing and composing using the waist level finder would be great and much better than either the plain or metering prisms, but it is useless for verticals because of the camera's 6x7 format. For this reason, I don't think I have ever used mine to actually take any photographs.

 

[itsdoable]

When I shot the P67, I preferred the waist level finder - lighter and more compact.

Waist level finders typically have a higher magnification than chimney finders. This is because you can flip the magnifier out and see the whole image - on a chimney finder, it important to be able to comfortably see the entire image through the finder. The higher magnification may be important to you for focusing.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

After reading this thread I just tried out slapping a Hasselblad chimney on my P67. Quite impressive brightness and clarity, and shockingly low weight for the whole kit with a small lens like the 90mm and dare I say good ergonomics with two big handles on each side to hold onto. Directly compared to the 'blad it is brighter and a finer fresnel. Any of you guys with the waist level finders want to sell me one?

 

[DREW WILEY]

There's a misunderstanding here. Both a chimney finder are the fold-down version are basically "waist level", in distinction from eye-level pentaprisms. But the tall "chimney finder" is the brightest option and has the best built-in magnifier. With the fold-down version, only the middle part of the image is magnified when that magnifier is optionally flipped into position; otherwise you're viewing the overall screen from above just like with a TLR, with ambient light tending to intrude. But with the chimney finder, it's own magnifier with adjustable diopter is always integrally in place, and all ambient light shut out.

 

[skysh4rk]

With the fold-down version, only the middle part of the image is magnified when that magnifier is flipped into position

As per my previous post, are you sure that this is true? I can certainly see the whole image in my "fold-down" waist level finder.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Am I sure this is true? I've only used all of these respective options for the past 40 yrs. I'm quite aware you can see the whole frame with the flip-down magnifier on the folding hood in place, but it's hard to resolve precise detail except in the center portion, and even then not ideal. If you visually compare this to what the chimney hood does, you'd understand the real improvement in performance with the chimney finder. The fold-down hood is nice for making the camera as compact as possible. Sometimes I'll put it on a spare body for airline travel, with one body loaded with black and white film, and the other with color. So if it's clumsy to use the folding hood, like in a vertical composition, I can simply borrow the pentaprism from the other body. Whenever using a prism, I alway have along a separate critical magnifier for it. The chimney hood allows overall focus best all well, especially in low light, but is nonetheless still a real headache when it comes to vertical compositions or a higher tripod viewpoint.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Before this devolves into a prism vs WLF fight, the whole reason I asked is because:

a.) I quite rarely use my Pentax for verticals & I am partly looking to see if a waist level type of finder adds or removes from the metaphysics of how the camera feels to me.

b.) I quite often find myself removing the prism the check edges & the 100% view of the waist level finders are obviously useful in that regard.

c.) You can hand hold the camera quite efficiently with a non prism finder and given how little I use a tripod with my Pentax, this is a factor I have considered from the start.

 

[skysh4rk]

Am I sure this is true? I've only used all of these respective options for the past 40 yrs. I'm quite aware you can see the whole frame with the flip-down magnifier on the folding hood in place, but it's hard to resolve precise detail except in the center portion, and even then not ideal. If you visually compare this to what the chimney hood does, you'd understand the real improvement in performance with the chimney finder. The fold-down hood is nice for making the camera as compact as possible. Sometimes I'll put it on a spare body for airline travel, with one body loaded with black and white film, and the other with color. So if it's clumsy to use the folding hood, like in a vertical composition, I can simply borrow the pentaprism from the other body. Whenever using a prism, I alway have along a separate critical magnifier for it. The chimney hood allows overall focus best all well, especially in low light, but is nonetheless still a real headache when it comes to vertical compositions or a higher tripod viewpoint.

I don’t question your experiences or other thoughts regarding the camera or its viewfinders, but would put out there that I don’t find any issues with viewing or focusing away from the centre with any Pentax viewfinder I’ve used. It’s one of the reasons I prefer the system, as I don’t like using the centre to focus.

At any rate, I’m probably derailing the thread, so I’ll be quiet now.

 

[DREW WILEY]

No need to be apologetic. The question was about preferences, and you've stated yours.

 

[skysh4rk]

Before this devolves into a prism vs WLF fight, the whole reason I asked is because:

a.) I quite rarely use my Pentax for verticals & I am partly looking to see if a waist level type of finder adds or removes from the metaphysics of how the camera feels to me.

b.) I quite often find myself removing the prism the check edges & the 100% view of the waist level finders are obviously useful in that regard.

c.) You can hand hold the camera quite efficiently with a non prism finder and given how little I use a tripod with my Pentax, this is a factor I have considered from the start.

If you're content with losing the capability for easy vertical shooting, then the waist level finder will provide the advantages of a brighter screen, easier focusing, and vision of 100% of the image area compared to the prism finders. This goes along with a more compact and lighter camera setup and potentially better ergonomics (as long as you aren't shooting portrait orientation).

If this were the Pentax 6x6 we were talking about, I would be preferring the waist level finder to any other Pentax finder all day, as the combination of the WLF and focusing screen makes for the best focusing experience I've had in medium format. As a 6x7 camera though, I haven't found the WLF useful yet in practice and it's not cheap.

 

[abruzzi]

I have both, and have used the prism 70% of the time. For the rest of the time I’ve found I prefer the folding WLF to the chimney finder. The flip out magnifier has a higher magnification than the chimney, plus the convenience of the smaller finder makes me prefer it.